What is it about?

HARKing, or hypothesising after the results are known, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report (Kerr, 1998; Rubin, 2017). HARKing is often explained using a Texas sharpshooter analogy: While no-one is looking, a Texas sharpshooter fires his gun at a barn wall. He then walks up to his bullet holes and paints targets around them. When his friends arrive, he points at the targets and claims that he’s a good shot (de Groot, 2014; Rubin, 2017b). In the case of HARKing, researchers conduct statistical tests, observe their research results (bullet holes), and then construct post hoc predictions (paint targets) to fit these results. In their research reports, they then pretend that their post hoc hypotheses are actually a priori hypotheses.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

HARKing is a questionable research practice that is thought to have contributed to the replication crisis in science (e.g., Shrout & Rodgers, 2018). Its potential costs to scientific progress provide part of the rationale for researchers to publicly preregister their hypotheses ahead of their research (Wagenmakers et al., 2012).

Perspectives

My paper provides a critical analysis of Kerr’s (1998) 12 potential costs of HARKing. I argue that these costs are either misconceived, misattributed to HARKing, lacking evidence, or that they do not take into account pre- and post-publication peer review and public availability to research materials and data. I conclude that it is premature to assume that HARKing is an important contributor to the replication crisis in science.

Prof Mark Rubin
Durham University

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: The Costs of HARKing, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, December 2019, Oxford University Press (OUP),
DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axz050.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page